[opus] Patches for adding 120 ms encoding
Felicia Lim
flim at google.com
Mon Jun 27 13:05:23 UTC 2016
Attached is the amended second patch. It now extends the multistream API as
well to 80/100/120 ms and incorporates changes based on Mark's comments.
Thanks,
Felicia
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:21 PM Felicia Lim <flim at google.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark, Jean-Marc,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 6:34 AM Mark Harris <mark.hsj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Felicia,
>>
>> A few comments:
>>
>> > - /* CELT can only support up to 20 ms */
>> > subframe_size = st->Fs/50;
>> > - nb_subframes = frame_size > st->Fs/25 ? 3 : 2;
>> > + nb_subframes = frame_size/subframe_size;
>>
>> This will use six 20ms frames to make a 120ms packet, even for
>> SILK-only mode where frames can be up to 60ms. For SILK, two 60ms
>> frames would be a more efficient way to encode a 120ms packet. Also
>> FEC, if enabled, would be 3 times as effective. Similarly, two 40ms
>> SILK frames would be more efficient than four 20ms SILK frames.
>>
>
> That makes sense, I've changed it so that SILK 120/80 ms encode 2x 60 and
> 2x 40 ms respectively.
>
>
>>
>>
>> - /* Can't support higher than wideband for >20 ms frames */
>> - if (frame_size > st->Fs/50 && (st->mode == MODE_CELT_ONLY ||
>> st->bandwidth > OPUS_BANDWIDTH_WIDEBAND))
>> + /* Can't support higher than wideband for >20 ms frames,
>> CELT-only for >20 ms and SILK-only for >60 ms */
>> + if ((frame_size > st->Fs/50 && (st->mode == MODE_CELT_ONLY ||
>> st->bandwidth > OPUS_BANDWIDTH_WIDEBAND)) ||
>> + (frame_size > 3*st->Fs/50 && st->mode == MODE_SILK_ONLY))
>>
>> At this point in the function st->mode is not yet finalized; it has
>> only decided whether to use CELT-only mode. If st->mode ==
>> MODE_CELT_ONLY then it has decided to use CELT-only mode. Otherwise
>> it has decided to use SILK-only or Hybrid mode, and will set st->mode
>> to the correct mode (depending on bandwidth) a few lines after the end
>> of this if statement. So unless those lines are moved before this if
>> statement, it doesn't make sense to compare st->mode == MODE_SILK_ONLY
>> here.
>>
>> The "&& st->mode == MODE_SILK_ONLY" term is actually not needed at all
>> because you will want this if-condition to be true for any size larger
>> than 60ms regardless of mode. Nevertheless you may still want to move
>> up the lines that finalize st->mode if you want to use it to determine
>> the size of each frame as mentioned above. That would also allow this
>> if-condition to be further simplified.
>>
>>
> Thanks for pointing this out. I've moved the bandwidth-dependent
> SILK/Hybrid mode decision up and simplified the if-condition as:
>
> if ((frame_size > st->Fs/50 && (st->mode != MODE_SILK_ONLY)) || frame_size
> > 3*st->Fs/50)
>
>
>>
>> > +static opus_int32 encode_subframes_and_repacketize(OpusEncoder *st,
>> > + const opus_val16 *pcm,
>> > + int nb_frames,
>> > + int frame_size,
>> > + unsigned char *data,
>> > + opus_int32 out_data_bytes,
>> > + int to_celt,
>> > + int lsb_depth,
>> > + int c1,
>> > + int c2,
>> > + int analysis_channels,
>> > + downmix_func downmix,
>> > + int float_api)
>>
>> I understand that this was split out into a separate function
>> originally because you wanted to call it twice, but now that you have
>> merged the two calls is there still a need for it to be split out into
>> a separate function? If it had a simple and concise interface then it
>> may make sense even with one call, but in this case the arguments that
>> it requires are numerous and peculiar to the specific implementation
>> in the calling function.
>>
>>
> I opted to leave this anyway because the logic here seemed significant
> enough to stand by itself and it makes the purpose of this code more
> explicit in opus_encode_native. I agree though that there are a lot of
> input arguments (it could be reduced by 1 by moving the nr_subframes
> calculation in here as well). I can also undo this split if this is
> preferred?
>
>
>>
>> > + bytes_per_frame = IMIN(1276,(out_data_bytes-3)/nb_frames);
>>
>> The current code uses this formula because with up to 3 frames per
>> packet, in the worst case the combined packet will require
>> nb_frames*bytes_per_frame + 3 bytes (where bytes_per_frame is the code
>> 0 packet length, as it is here). However the worst case is worse with
>> more frames per packet. A slight change to the formula would make it
>> sufficient for any valid number of frames per packet:
>>
>> bytes_per_frame = IMIN(1276, out_data_bytes/nb_frames - 1);
>>
>>
> This has now been fixed.
>
>
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi Felicia,
>> >
>> > I still need to look very carefully, which will take some time. That
>> > being said, some comments I can already make:
>> > 1) You need to also update the multi-stream API.
>
>
> Agreed, I had originally planned to wait until the single-stream patch
> looked good to split the patches/review into smaller chunks, but I'm also
> happy to start on the multi-stream API and share that together with the
> single-stream patches?
>
> > 2) You might want to check that CBR works for >60 ms encoding
>>
>
> I have checked that the packet lengths returned by the encoder are
> constant with the expected values, based on the requested bitrate.
>
> Thanks,
> Felicia
>
>
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Jean-Marc
>> >
>> >
>> > On 06/10/2016 10:19 AM, Felicia Lim wrote:
>> >> Hi, I wondered if are there any further thoughts on these patches?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Felicia
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:13 PM Felicia Lim <flim at google.com
>> >> <mailto:flim at google.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> OK, I've amended the second patch and also added 80 and 100 ms.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Felicia
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:20 AM Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca
>> >> <mailto:jmvalin at jmvalin.ca>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 06/01/2016 02:06 PM, Felicia Lim wrote:
>> >> > That was my intention with refactoring out the subframe
>> >> encoding and
>> >> > repacketizing bit. Or do you mean I should merge the explicit
>> >> check for
>> >> > 120 ms frame and the existing checks for 40/60 ms wideband?
>> >>
>> >> What I mean is that this line in opus_encoder.c:
>> >>
>> >> if (frame_size > st->Fs/50 && (st->mode == MODE_CELT_ONLY ||
>> >> st->bandwidth > OPUS_BANDWIDTH_WIDEBAND))
>> >>
>> >> can probably be extended to also cover 80/100/120 ms. One
>> >> difference is
>> >> that it would also need to trigger for SILK-only > 60 ms.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Jean-Marc
>> >>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > opus mailing list
>> > opus at xiph.org
>> > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/opus
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20160627/96bb6708/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0002-Extend-support-for-80-100-and-120-ms.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 13655 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/opus/attachments/20160627/96bb6708/attachment-0001.obj>
More information about the opus
mailing list